Summary of Damien's Mental Health History

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No, please review my prior posts. Their convictions will never be overturned. That part is over.

I don't see how. If they were convicted and pleaded guilty, Yet they do find the real killer, they can not leave the conviction as it stands. A judge will most certainly have to vacate those convictions.

I read your post and I know that you are an atty, But it seems to me that if someone else is finally caught and convicted, they would have to clear these guys for good.

Just as Ryan Ferguson's conviction was overturned and he was set free.

 

[Cappuccino]

These guys were convicted and will always have to divulge that.

Does it matter? Damien's written two books about his life story, Jason's done a series of public speaking engagements talking about their experiences and Jessie lives in a community where everybody knows who he is.

I don't think there was ever any question of the West Memphis 3 needing to "divulge" their background, its pretty common knowledge. And with the exception of Jessie maybe, I don't think it will hold them back in any way.

 

[gitana1]

I don't see how. If they were convicted and pleaded guilty, Yet they do find the real killer, they can not leave the conviction as it stands. A judge will most certainly have to vacate those convictions.

I read your post and I know that you are an atty, But it seems to me that if someone else is finally caught and convicted, they would have to clear these guys for good.

Just as Ryan Ferguson's conviction was overturned and he was set free.

I've explained how. I'm sorry but that's the law. It doesn't matter if it's fair or right or whatever. It's the way it works.

Let me break it down:

The WM3 filed appeals.
Ryan Ferguson filed an appeal.

Ryan won his appeal. His conviction was overturned, the state decided not to retry him so he was released.

The WM3 lost their appeal. Their convictions were upheld. Then, they tried another avenue unique to Arkansas law - the possibility of exoneration, new trial, etc., via a motion for a new trial based on DNA evidence. They won that motion and were granted a new trial.

A new trial was set. Instead of proceeding to trial, however, the sides settled via the Alford plea. The WM3 gave up their right to trial. All mechanisms to overturn their convictions are now exhausted. there are no more mechanisms.

That does not mean they can't be exonerated, however, as there are other paths to exoneration, such as a pardon.

Honey, those are just the facts. They can't have their convictions overturned "Just as Ryan Ferguson's conviction was overturned", because these are different circumstances and they already appealed and lost. That's it. There are definite appellate rights and theirs are gone. That's over.

I'm trying to make it as clear as I can. Is everyone confused about this? If so, it's my fault. For me it's kind of straight forward once the mechanisms and procedures are explained but if I'm not communicating what's going on correctly, that's my fault and I can try to see if it can be explained another way.

Does it matter? Damien's written two books about his life story, Jason's done a series of public speaking engagements talking about their experiences and Jessie lives in a community where everybody knows who he is.

I don't think there was ever any question of the West Memphis 3 needing to "divulge" their background, its pretty common knowledge. And with the exception of Jessie maybe, I don't think it will hold them back in any way.

Yup. Agreed. It doesn't matter, IMO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Got it..

 

[Cappuccino]

Sorry Gitana1 but you're not quite right either. The wm3 did not win the right to a new trial, they won an evidentiary hearing which may or may not have led to a new trial.

 

[gitana1]

Sorry Gitana1 but you're not quite right either. The wm3 did not win the right to a new trial, they won an evidentiary hearing which may or may not have led to a new trial.

Cappucino, yes, you are correct! 100% correct. It was NOT a new trial at all.

 

[Ausgirl]

gitana, just a cheers for your input on the above legal issues. Perfectly clear to me. Thanks!

 

[Ausgirl]

There are valid reasons on both sides, logical reasons, to believe in their guilt or in their innocence. I think everyone should be more accepting of the validity of each other's opinions. But mostly what I see here is emotion and rhetoric, and it tires me after a while.

YES. As well as a good deal more polite.

As a long-time reader, recent poster in these threads, I do think things have taken a turn for the better. I am certainly finding most posters here quite pleasant and polite, even in disagreement. It's actually very refreshing to see people who have polarised opinions managing to debate without need for personal insult.

Well, mostly. But there's always gonna be a few, eh.

I hope you do return to posting more, gitana - no matter whether we disagree or agree, I find your posts respectful and useful.

 

[Compassionate Reader]

All I will say is that, if finding the real killer (and having enough hard evidence to prove it) isn't enough to overturn the August 19, 2012 decisions in this case, I'm glad I don't live in Arkansas and hope and pray that no one I care about ever finds him/herself under Arkansas law! I totally understand the discussion about Arkansas LE not wanting to admit that they were wrong. That's what we've been fighting for years! I still believe that at least one of the prosecutors acted unethically in this case, and I fear that the same is true for the original trial judge. I guess that's just the "good ol' boy" network in Arkansas. Doesn't make it right, however, and I'd think that an ethical person would want to see it changed.

One question: what does the past few pages have to do with Damien's mental health issues? Maybe this thread should be split and a new one discussing the legal intricacies of this case should be started. Can someone do that?

 

[kyleb]

No prosecution team is going to approach a case in the manner you suggest, not familiarizing themselves enough with the case.

That's what lead prosecutor Scott Ellington explained to the West of Memphis film crew:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNpcUtbwNZU"]Prosecutor Scott Ellington on Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelley Guilt - YouTube[/ame]

As far as gathering up evidence, I hadn't gotten there yet. I've not reviewed reams and reams and volumes, and boxes and boxes. But the evidence I've seen, I believe these guys are guilty, I know they plead guilty.

While I'm disappointed that Ellington didn't better familiarize himself with the body of evidence, the man surely has a lot of murderers put and keep behind bars and only so much time and resources to do that with, and given the unique circumstances of this case I figure he made a reasonable compromise with the Alford Plead deal. That said, if what Ellington explained of himself is malpractice as you allege, I'd like to see whatever guidelines he violated in accepting the Alford pleas under the circumstances he described.

There are valid reasons on both sides, logical reasons, to believe in their guilt or in their innocence.

Rather, there are invalid reasons on both sides of any given contention over a point of fact, illogical reasons to believe one way or another. There's only one correct answer in such matters of contention though, and attempts at reasoning which leads to the wrong answer are inherently invalid, while logic can only lead to the correct answer or leave the question open due to insufficient evidence. That's why when people proclaim innocence in this case, or reasonable doubt as you did, I ask where one can find a case for such actually demonstrated. It's not that I'm looking to debate you, but rather simply because I'm curious to see if what you proclaim as truth has actually been demonstrated as such. Regardless, I do hope you'll demonstrate how what Ellington described of himself is malpractice if that is in fact the truth of that matter.

 

[reedus23]

Let me address this. A suspended sentence is always a conviction for law enforcement purposes and will always show when an employer searches their criminal records. If the defendant is eligible for an expungement, then many private employers may have trouble locating the suspended sentence and "conviction" but government employers will not and most establishments like hospitals, schools, require that you notify them of even expunged crimes.

But again, the guys in this case did not have just a suspended sentence. That was only PART of their sentence. They were convicted and were also sentenced to "time served". So they were setneced to a certain time period which included time served and the rest was suspended. This is not like the SIS you are describing and would not have the effect you think it does in Arkansas, or ANY state in the U.S. I know it;s confusing. I really hope I have made that clear.

These guys were convicted and will always have to divulge that.

Thanks again gitana. It sounds like Arkansas handles such sentences differently. A SIS simply is not a conviction here and doesn't show up on background checks. Again, that doesn't mean the case just up and disappears. LE and DA's can see it but not so much for the general public. A suspended execution of sentence, on the other hand, is a conviction here and is treated as such. I think I had mentioned it before, but where I'm at, it's also very unusual to see an SIS given on serious charges like that too though.

 

[gitana1]

That's what lead prosecutor Scott Ellington explained to the West of Memphis film crew:

Prosecutor Scott Ellington on Baldwin, Echols, and Misskelley Guilt - YouTube



While I'm disappointed that Ellington didn't better familiarize himself with the body of evidence, the man surely has a lot of murderers put and keep behind bars and only so much time and resources to do that with, and given the unique circumstances of this case I figure he made a reasonable compromise with the Alford Plead deal. That said, if what Ellington explained of himself is malpractice as you allege, I'd like to see whatever guidelines he violated in accepting the Alford pleas under the circumstances he described.

Snipped for space.

It s was a team, not just Ellington. Again, no prosecution team is going to approach a case in the manner you suggest, not familiarizing themselves enough with the case. It is perfectly acceptable to allow some members of the team to review certain portions of the case, and others other portions of the case. He is not guilty of malpractice as long as the team as a whole was familiar with the evidence.

Thanks again gitana. It sounds like Arkansas handles such sentences differently. A SIS simply is not a conviction here and doesn't show up on background checks. Again, that doesn't mean the case just up and disappears. LE and DA's can see it but not so much for the general public. A suspended execution of sentence, on the other hand, is a conviction here and is treated as such. I think I had mentioned it before, but where I'm at, it's also very unusual to see an SIS given on serious charges like that too though.

No, Arkansas is not different. As I stated before, a suspended sentence will always show in a LE background check or governmental employee check. In your state. In every state. people think it won't. They think expungments hide their crimes. Neither do. It's a fallacy. I know this because it is a hot button issue that comes up a lot with with my own clients and my law partner's clients and with the clients of some of the other attorneys in my suite who do nothing but expungments.

Second, and again, these guys didn't just have a suspended sentence, They had time served AND the rest of their sentence was suspended. I know it's confusing but this is a completely different situation than what you are describing, which is essentially an avenue to give defendants a second chance and the opportunity to prove that the crime they were charged with was an anomaly and they can fly right and turn it around. If the defendants in the scenario you are referring to can do that at the end of their suspended sentence period, then the conviction is expunged. But you are combining that scenario with this one and they are two totally different animals. Their situation is quite unique and can't really be compared.

But remember, they can still be exonerated. And a pardon can be said to act to vacate a conviction, in a sense. It can't "overturn" it but especially in the case of a pardon that includes a statement as to why the pardon is being granted, it can certainly have the same effect as far as exonerating the people pardoned.

And let me say that in other states, the legislature can act to help a convict be pardoned. So it may not just be totally in the hands of the governor in this case. Take a look here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...a-legislature-pardon-scottsboro-boys/2053043/

 

[kyleb]

It s was a team, not just Ellington. Again, no prosecution team is going to approach a case in the manner you suggest, not familiarizing themselves enough with the case.

But are you still insistent that, as a team, "the prosecution are scumbags" who "know the truth, but like almost all prosecutors, they are unwilling to admit they were wrong", and by implication Ellington is a liar for saying "I believe these guys are guilty"? Or are you open to the possibility that you might have been wrong to suggest that, and Ellington as his team might be both honest and correct in considering thee three guilty after reviewing the evidence to whatever extent they did?

 

[Ausgirl]

I just read this report again.

http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/gwoods.html

It's an incredibly sad overview. And that I think I am, through reading through all reports several times again now, beginning to get a clearer sort of picture on just how ill Damien was, and why. Some insight into his behavioural issues regarding others. And why it was that his mental condition improved in prison.

I had some more to say, but I'm still a bit gutted by that report, heh. So another time.

 

[kyleb]

Yes, Echols' history of mential illness is terribly sad, as are the conditions he suffered through growing up which surely inflamed that illness if not caused it. What makes the situation ever sadder through is that he continues to wallow in denial of such facts and surrounds himself with people who adopt and defend his disillusions.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes, Echols' history of mential illness is terribly sad, as are the conditions he suffered through growing up which surely inflamed that illness if not caused it. What makes the situation ever sadder through is that he continues to wallow in denial of such facts and surrounds himself with people who adopt and defend his disillusions.

What makes it sad is this has nothing to do with this case. I see him as nothing more than a stifled hormonal teen struggling to be different in the backwoods of the bible belt and so made crazy comments to be noticed.

What matters most is that he was convicted without real evidence that he committed this crime.

 

[kyleb]

I see him as nothing more than a stifled hormonal teen struggling to be different in the backwoods of the bible belt and so made crazy comments to be noticed.

Yet there's mounds of evidence to the contrary, detailed throughout this thread and elsewhere.

What matters most is that he was convicted without real evidence that he committed this crime.

Such opinions hardly matter to those of us who respect the standards of evidence by which our legal system operates, and they are off topic in this thread regardless.

 

[Ausgirl]

Scarlett, while I appreciate that everyone has thier POV and opinions, I can't agree with minimising Echols' behavioural issues. I'm always one to cut a kid a break, being not too unlike these boys in some ways, in my own youth.

But Echols had some way scary issues going on, and was capable of acting them out to a degree, though most of his 'violence' was verbal, it seems. Still, he hurt other kids, terrorised them, and took pride in it. I am also increasingly convinced that he was cruel to animals.

His being a suspect was well and truly fair enough, IMO. My problem lies in how that (and the case in general) was handled, the result of that being there's no way to be 100% sure if he was or wasn't guilty, and won't be, unless some pretty profound new evidence shows up.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scarlett, while I appreciate that everyone has thier POV and opinions, I can't agree with minimising Echols' behavioural issues. I'm always one to cut a kid a break, being not too unlike these boys in some ways, in my own youth.

But Echols had some way scary issues going on, and was capable of acting them out to a degree, though most of his 'violence' was verbal, it seems. Still, he hurt other kids, terrorised them, and took pride in it. I am also increasingly convinced that he was cruel to animals.

His being a suspect was well and truly fair enough, IMO. My problem lies in how that (and the case in general) was handled, the result of that being there's no way to be 100% sure if he was or wasn't guilty, and won't be, unless some pretty profound new evidence shows up.

My problem is that when it comes to the case, It was only bias not actual evidence of anything he did. I have known some disturbed teen boys and girls. DARK and bullyish. That still does not make him a murderer.

I know boys who were horrible as Teens and then grew up to be normal, albeit odd adults.

My problem is that it is used to say, SEE he did it, when that is just not the case. I don't believe he did this crime. I don't believe there is actual factual evidence and so for me this is just not relevant.

I think about Tim Masters, who had those horrid pictures he drew, his dark attitudes and bizarre behaviors that were used to convict him.. And yet the DNA finally got him out of prison because it was not his. IT was someone elses. He did not do it.

There are a lot of people I think are dark or weird and don't like. I don't particularly like Damien. But I don't think any of this points to murder.

 

[reedus23]

Scarlett, while I appreciate that everyone has thier POV and opinions, I can't agree with minimising Echols' behavioural issues. I'm always one to cut a kid a break, being not too unlike these boys in some ways, in my own youth.

But Echols had some way scary issues going on, and was capable of acting them out to a degree, though most of his 'violence' was verbal, it seems. Still, he hurt other kids, terrorised them, and took pride in it. I am also increasingly convinced that he was cruel to animals.

His being a suspect was well and truly fair enough, IMO. My problem lies in how that (and the case in general) was handled, the result of that being there's no way to be 100% sure if he was or wasn't guilty, and won't be, unless some pretty profound new evidence shows up.

From my point of view, it's not a question of being a suspect or not. If one wants to say Echols made a good suspect because of his mental health issues, I have no objection to it. But hanging one's hat on that as proof of guilt is illogical. There are many, many, many more darkly disturbed people prone to violence who never act out on it in this manner. So the question becomes, okay, he's a suspect, what evidence is actually there that ties him to the crime. The "mounds" of evidence referred to amounts to a "confession" that some refuse to acknowledge shortcomings of it and questionable admissions to kids at a game. I am not aware of any other piece of evidence that points to Echols to the exclusion of others. If that constitutes "mounds" of evidence then I'd suggest no one stands a chance of winning at trial if charged with a crime.